Torres v. State

725 So. 2d 1207, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 138, 1999 WL 9695
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Torres v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 697 So. 2d 175
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided January 13, 1999·No. No. 97-05099·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Israel Torres appeals the sentence imposed after pleading nolo contendere to possession of cannabis, arguing that the trial court erred by imposing a special condition of probation prohibiting him from using or possessing alcohol, associating with others who use alcohol, and from frequenting places where consumption of alcohol is the primary source of business. Torres preserved this issue by objecting on the grounds that this part of condition 18 was unrelated to the offense of possession of cannabis. This court has concluded that conditions of probation prohibiting the use of alcohol or frequenting places where alcohol is the main source of business, or associating with others that use alcohol are invalid in a possession of cannabis case because the conditions are not related to the crime. See Richardson v. State, 620 So.2d 257, 257 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993). Accordingly, we strike that portion of condition 18 as it relates to alcohol.

PARKER, C.J., and WHATLEY and SALCINES, JJ., Concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Torres v. State, 725 So. 2d 1207, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 138, 1999 WL 9695 (Fla. Ct. App. 1999).

725 So. 2d 1207 (Torres v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Richardson v. State
620 So. 2d 257 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1993)